Response 01.

Response 01. 


Through out this reading, I could not help but to compare each argument Bridsell made to advertising and branding.  We live in a world surrounded by visual images, and the arguments they are trying to convey in seconds. These images, when studied rhetorically can be considered texts, and allow us to decipher multiple possible conclusions, arguments, or deeper meanings. That being said, I disagree with the mentioned David Fleming, and think that visuals can, and do represent arguments.


If you think about it, our society loves visuals. As we drive down the street, billboards, or stores flashing their brands on signs bombard us. As we browse the web, a pop up forces its way in front of our eyes.  Mostly, they have seconds to capture our attention and effectively convey some information about the company they represent.


According to Dr. Art Markman, we are “conditioned” to understand the deeper meaning of advertisements subconsciously (Markman 1). Companies seek to convey not just the product they are selling, but potentially info about themselves, their brand, or their values—without using written text. Lets use an example of Cream Cheese.


Philadelphia Cream Cheese is one of the most popular brands in the US. Think about some of their advertisements. Some of the imagery includes clouds, angels, happy middle-aged women, and the color blue.  Their commercials used to be “made in the clouds” with people laughing and dancing. The selling points here are not just about the shite stuff you might goop onto your bagel each morning, there is a deeper argument made by the visuals.

The clouds might represent the “fluffy” image we imagine when we daydream about opening a pack of Cream Cheese, for example.


According to the book, Kellog on Branding, Kraft wanted to convey meaning in “relevant perceptual categories” such as, “Rich. Creamy. Authentic. Special Reward. Creative” (Kellog , 32).  They we successful at ding this through their visual marketing. There are rarely any words outside of the logo in Philadelphia ads, yet they still argue who, what and why should buy this product. The imagery relates to the target demographic in a way that is understandable, even if subconsciously.


All advertisements argue a deeper point or meaning, even simply in their logo. All companies are attempting to convey something much more than their selling point, to resonate with their target consumers. Keep an eye out, and wonder to yourselves what argument are being faced with next.





Kellog on Branding text book


One thought on “Response 01.

  1. Good entry. It’s always interesting to breakdown adverts and look at what they are really telling. Adverts can help us learn about the function of a product, or in this case, attributes about the product. Sometimes, I like to put another similar product in the advert and see if the argument holds up. in this case, as you point out, the angels represent whispiness and/or fluffiness. When one see the logo “Philadelphia” and immediately most people connect that to “Cream Cheese” and not with “Fresh Prince’s old stomping grounds” or “tennis balls.” The image relies entirely on that one cue: the contextual logo. It’s something that might not connect with seeing “Green Mountain Farms.” That might imply it’s a place that kids’ pets get sent after getting to old to run around with other gold fish.

    Now I am off to sit on my throne in Bel Air.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s